The economic chain reaction of removing undocumented workers from the US economy:

The economic chain reaction of removing undocumented workers from the US economy:

The Direct Effects

The immediate impact is a supply shock to the "linchpin" sectors of the economy. In industries like agriculture, construction, hospitality, and healthcare, undocumented workers often perform specialized, physically demanding roles that the rest of the production chain relies on. When these workers are removed, the production of goods—from harvested crops to new housing—doesn't just slow down; it often stops entirely because there are no available substitutes for those specific tasks.

Furthermore, the loss of these individuals as consumers causes an immediate "demand shock." This population pays rent, buys groceries, and uses local services, supporting the jobs of the U.S.-born citizens who work in those retail and service sectors.

The Compounding Effects

The broader damage occurs through a series of "economic heart attacks" caused by bottlenecks and fear:

• The Labor Multiplier: Losing one specialized crew (like roofers) renders the rest of the workforce (electricians, plumbers, real estate agents) unemployed because the project cannot proceed.
• The Care Vacuum: The removal of home health aides forces U.S.-born family members to leave their own professional jobs to provide care for elderly or disabled relatives, essentially removing a second wave of workers from the economy.
• The "Chilling Effect": A climate of mass removal creates a wave of fear that paralyzes legal residents and green card holders. These legal workers may stop showing up to job sites or avoid public spending to stay below the radar, leading to "ghost town" effects in local retail and further labor shortages.
• Capital Stranding: Expensive machinery, farmland, and commercial buildings become "dead assets." Without the labor to operate or occupy them, the owners of these assets lose their investment value, which can trigger a broader contraction in the financial and real estate markets.

In short, the economy doesn't just "shrink" by the size of the population removed (3% of the US population is undocumented); it fractures because the inter-connected parts of the supply chain can no longer reach one another.

How do YOU think quality journalism should be paid for?

 

How do YOU think quality journalism should be paid for?

1) Advertising. Fair answer. You exchange your time spent watching the ads for the journalism.

2) Paid Subscriptions. Fair answer. (although it does imply that low income people don't have access to quality journalism)

3) Donations. Fair answer. Some consumers of the journalism pay so that those who can't or won't pay don't have to.

4) Rich people should provide journalism free. Hmm! Consider what kind of journalism THAT gets.

5) The government. When you agree with the government, that's great, but do you really want Trump's regime supplying the news?

6) It should be free, nobody should pay for it. That's not a real world answer. SOMEBODY is picking up the tab, and if you don't know who is paying, that's even worse.

EVERY War is "Our War"

I say that EVERY War is "Our War," and that we have both a moral and a self-serving imperative to care about every conflict everywhere in the world. That certainly does NOT mean that we should send Americans or military supplies to every conflict, and in most cases that is exactly what we should NOT do. The response to each conflict needs to be completely customized, but ignoring the conflicts and pretending they don't exist is never the right thing to do.

The best we can hope for in a conflict is to use our influence to bring about a quick and just peace. The worst we can do is to provide military support to the "wrong" side, the self-serving aggressor, as in the case of Israel assaulting Gazans. Let's look at some examples:

The civil war in Sudan, as one example, pits two cruel and self-serving adversary groups against each other (which is typical of most civil wars in Africa and around the world at the moment). Certainly neither group deserves US support. Both groups oppose humanitarian aid being sent to Sudan. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing we could do. Outside players including UAE, Libya Russia, Egypt & Iran, are sending military equipment to one side or the other in Sudan, purely for their own self-serving interest, and not out of principal or humanitarian interest. The US could and should use its geopolitical influence to interrupt the flow of military equipment to both sides. Also, we should be ready at a moment's notice to send massive humanitarian aid as soon as the situation on the ground allows it.

MY Thoughts on the Near-Future World in which AI & Robots Do Most of the Work

 In MY opinion, it is inevitable that AI & Robots will perform most of the world's work relatively soon - not in my lifetime, but in my grandchildren's. 

1) Available technology has never been suppressed for long, and never will be. Progress is inevitable.

2) The core breakthroughs to enable an AI/Robot-driven world have already been made. What remains is (lots of) refinement, and implementation.

*I* see two very different ways in which our AI/Robot future could play out in society as human labor is no longer needed to perform the world's mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks:

1) The widespread availability of AI & Robots COULD be the catalyst for a social revolution that ushers in a society in which the fruits of AI/Robot production are shared by ALL people, with EVERYONE receiving at least enough for a comfortable life. Think #UBI (Universal Basic Income) as the first step in this direction.

2) In the absence of a social revolution that embraces human equality and sharing, *I* see catastrophe awaiting in widespread AI/Robot adoption. AI/Robots *WILL* mostly eliminate the need for human labor to perform mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks, so most people *WILL* become "unemployed." Without a sharing of that new-found wealth:

 a) Most people would become destitute.
 b) The oligarchs would become even more obscenely wealthy in the short term
        as they no longer needed to pay wages, BUT...
 c) Oligarchs need CUSTOMERS as well as producers. AI/Robots can build a car, for example,
        but they don't BUY cars - so the whole system falls apart.
 d) ALSO, Destitute people become desperate and take ACTION, SO IMO, the social revolution will happen later if not sooner, and if delayed too long might not be a peaceful revolution.

What would people DO with themselves if they didn't have to labor at mind-numbing and repetitive tasks? Write poetry (as John Quincy Adams suggested), hike the Appalachian Trail, study (science, history, literature, a thousand other things), spend time with their grandchildren and their grandparents. It is tragic that humanity has been all-consumed with "work" for so long that we even need to ask what we could do without "work."

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

https://www.commondreams.org/

https://newrepublic.com/ 

https://theintercept.com/

https://zeteo.com/

https://www.dropsitenews.com/

https://www.propublica.org/ 

https://inthesetimes.com/

https://progressive.org/ 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/

https://www.texasobserver.org/topics/politics/

https://kyivindependent.com/

https://theconversation.com/global

https://tnholler.com/ 

I also read these commercial news sites:

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.apnews.com/

and I am also a very active user of Blue Sky

https://bsky.app/profile/amerliberal.bsky.social

Let's Look at Gendered Sports and Gendered Restrooms

Let's look at the BIGGER PICTURE of gendered sports and gendered restrooms, and look at the nature of segregation in general - and the similarities between racial segregation and gender segregation...

In the Jim Crow era, a LOT of time and effort was spent arguing over who could use "Whites Only" restrooms and play on "Whites Only" sports teams. What about those who looked White but had a trace of African ancestry? What about Arabs and others who didn't fit neatly into the binary racial segregation system in the United States?

The answer - obvious in retrospect - is that RACIAL SEGREGATION was the problem! Once there were no longer "Whites Only" facilities or "Whites Only" sports teams, there was automatically no longer a question of which restroom an Arab (for example) was required to use, or which sports teams they were allowed to play on.

Today, a LOT of time and effort is spent arguing over who can use "Women's Only" or "Men's Only restrooms and play on "Women's Only" or "Men's Only" sports teams. The parallel between GENDER SEGREGATION and RACIAL SEGREGATION is obvious. In MY Opinion, the solution is also obvious. Instead of arguing over where an individual fits into the binary gender segregation system, LET'S ELIMINATE the GENDER SEGREGATION SYSTEM. If "Whites" and "Coloreds" can learn to use the same restrooms, so can "men" and "women." Same with sports teams. Same with the military. Same with the legal system. Same with all of life. Like Racial Segregation, Gender Segregation is an evil that we need to relegate to history.

[and for those who argue that race is clearly not binary, while gender is, look at the reality of the Jim Crow era: the racists of that time absolutely did believe that an individual WAS definitively either "White" or "Not White."]

----- Background - AI Generated (Gemini)

During the era of Jim Crow segregation in the United States, the concept of race was rigidly defined and enforced, but it wasn't always straightforward. Here's how some groups outside the strict White/Black binary were dealt with:

• People of Arab Descent:

  • Varied Treatment: Individuals of Arab descent experienced a range of treatment. Some were considered "white" due to their lighter skin tones and European ancestry, while others were subjected to discrimination and prejudice, often being lumped in with other non-white groups.
  • "Honorary Whites": Some Arab Americans, particularly those with lighter skin and higher socioeconomic status, were able to "pass" as white and avoid some of the harshest forms of discrimination.

• People of Indian Descent:

  • Often Classified as "Other": People of Indian descent were often not easily categorized within the existing racial framework. They were frequently classified as "Asian" or "Other," which could lead to varying degrees of discrimination and exclusion.
  • Exclusion from "White" Spaces: Despite sometimes being considered "honorary whites" in certain social circles, they were often excluded from "white" spaces and faced discrimination in areas like housing and employment.

• People with Darker Skin Tones:

  • Subjected to Increased Scrutiny: Individuals with darker skin tones, regardless of their ancestry, faced increased scrutiny and were often subjected to harsher treatment. This applied to people of Southern European descent (such as Italians and Greeks), as well as individuals from other regions with darker skin.
  • "Honorary Whites" vs. "Non-White": The classification of individuals with darker skin tones often depended on their socioeconomic status, perceived ancestry, and the specific social and political context.

• Multiracial People:

  • "One-Drop Rule" Applied: The "one-drop rule" was often applied to individuals of mixed race, meaning that even a small amount of African ancestry could lead to their classification as Black.
  • "Passing" as White: Some individuals of mixed race attempted to "pass" as white to avoid the consequences of being classified as Black.

Important Considerations:

• Subjectivity and Inconsistency: The application of these rules was highly subjective and inconsistent, varying significantly by region and over time.
• Social and Psychological Impact: These experiences had a profound impact on the lives of individuals who did not fit neatly into the existing racial categories. They often experienced social isolation, internalized racism, and struggled with their racial identity.

Disclaimer: This is a simplified overview, and the experiences of individuals within these groups varied greatly.

It's crucial to remember that the Jim Crow era was a period of systemic racism and oppression. The experiences of individuals who did not fit neatly into the dominant racial categories highlight the complex and often arbitrary nature of race classifications and the devastating impact of racial prejudice.

----- end-of-AI-generated

A Look at the MANY Factors that Contributed to Trump's 2024 Win

There are MANY different reasons that Trump won! I don't know how much weight to assign to each, but these are some of the reasons (in no particular order):

Misogyny: This is far more than not wanting a female president, this is the feeling among men, especially young men, that women have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF MEN. These men want a return to the time when men were granted exalted status in legal affairs, in society, and in the home, simply for being male.

Racism: This is far more than not wanting a non-White president, this is the feeling among Whites, especially White men, that people-of-color have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE PEOPLE. These Whites want a return to the time when Whites were granted exalted status in legal affairs and in society, simply for being White.

Xenophobia: Let's be clear, what LOOKS like prejudice against people who live, or used to live, in other countries, is NOT that, it is just another version of RACISM. No MAGA ever suggested deporting Elon Musk or Melania Trump, even though they were born in other countries and both broke the rules of their immigrant visas (and are thus both legally subject to deportation). Those who say "immigrants" should be deported ALWAYS mean NON-WHITE immigrants should be deported.

Homophobia/Transphobia: This is the feeling, especially among men, that LGBTQ+ people, especially Trans people, have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE. These men want a return to the time when straight people were granted exalted status in legal affairs, in society, and in the family, simply for being straight.
Homophobia/Transphobia is also a major issue in Religious Extremism.

Note that when MAGAs say "Stop WOKE" they mean: Bring back Misogyny, Racism, and Homophobia/Transphobia.

Religious Extremism: This is a huge and complex issue, so let's look at the component parts:

Religious Extremism - Privilege: This is the feeling among some Christians that their religion is being diminished. These Christians want a return to the time when the Christian Religion was granted exalted status (even exclusive status) in legal affairs and in society.

Religious Extremism - "Morality": American law and American society have long been dominated by "conservative" "Christian" views toward "morality" regarding marriage, family, sexual orientation, birth control, abortion, "Protestant Work Ethic," and more. These "Christian" Religious Extremists want a return to the time when THEIR version of "morality" was the basis for American law and American society.

Religious Extremism - "Protestant Work Ethic": The Protestant Work Ethic is the view that a person's religious duty "is to achieve success through hard work and thrift, such success being a sign that one is saved." Among many other ugly side effects, this leads Protestant Religious Extremists to oppose most social programs, including subsidized healthcare, SNAP, WIC, UBI, etc.

Prices/Rents: Nationally, rents have increased 20% from 2019 to 2024. In some areas the increase has been much greater. In my part of Florida, rents are up 50% from 2019 to 2024. Many Trump voters were INFURIATED by Biden and Harris and their surrogates continually harping on "declining inflation & rising wages!" REAL people demand MORE than that the rate of increase of prices slow, AND they demand more empathy from their leaders! Probably there is nothing any President could have done to bring rents and other high-impact prices (groceries, gas...) back to 2019 levels, BUT they could and should have acknowledged the PAIN, rather than telling Americans they were just crybabies for complaining!!!

Israel/Gaza: Very few if any voters voted for Trump because of the Biden/Harris decision to support Israel's genocide of Gazans through weapons, money, and pressure on the UN & American allies, BUT a lot of voters chose to vote 3rd party or not to cast a ballot in order to avoid supporting either genocidal Biden/Harris or genocidal Trump. [remember that I am reporting, not condoning anyone's vote]

Change: Some voters just wanted change, and would vote for any candidate/party who was not the incumbent. This has been a global trend recently.

Smash the System: Some voters just wanted to destroy the status quo (legislators who get rich from billionaire and corporate money and stay in office for life, income inequality, Capitalism in general, etc.)

There are probably other crucial reasons Trump won, what have I left out?

#HarrisWalz2024! #GetOutTheVOTE!

 

There are 3 (and a half) reasons for the Silicon Valley Bank failure...

There are 3 (and a half) reasons for the Silicon Valley Bank failure. Change any one of the 3 and everything would have been ok.

1) Large deposits were not FDIC insured. If they had been, depositors would NOT have panicked. Congress MUST extend FDIC insurance (which is paid for by a fee on banks, and NOT by taxpayers) to cover ALL deposits in regulated banks.

2) The Fed changed interest rates TOO FAST.  Banks can live with high rates or low rates, but NOT with rapidly changing rates.

3) SVB management erred by buying longer-maturity treasury bonds.

3.5) Ending Dodd-Frank reduced regulatory oversight of banks in the $50B-$250B range. Even with DF, regulators might or might not have disallowed SVB's purchase of US bonds. Also, DF would do nothing to protect depositors in small banks.

"Most accidents do not have a single cause: there are usually multiple things that went wrong, multiple events that, had any one of them not occurred, would have prevented the accident." ― Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things

What is "Freedom?" My very personal perspective

 

For *ME*, Freedom (should we call it #HumanRights?) is:

1) The right to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't cause undue harm to another.

2) Being protected (by my government) from being harmed by others.

Some of the freedoms I personally have and am grateful for:

The right to eat what I choose.

The right to live where I choose.

My right (as an American citizen with a passport) to travel almost anywhere in the world.

My right (as an old American on Social Security) to work or not work as I prefer.

Clean water, safe food, emergency medical services and hospitals

Some of the freedoms I do NOT have that I personally think I should have:

The right to #DeathWithDignity.

The right to use whatever drugs I want for whatever purpose without needing a prescription. (Why should anyone else have the the right to prevent me from controlling my pain.)

The freedom to live without fear that my car will be stolen or my home broken into.

The right to have a bumper sticker on my car without being harassed and threatened.

The right to use the phone, messaging, and email without being assaulted by spam.

Some of the freedoms that I have to a large extent, but NOT enough:

The right to access everything that exists electronically (internet) and on paper.

The right to live without religion being imposed on me.

-----------

Is freedom anything else than the right

to live as we wish? Nothing else.

- Epictetus

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.

- John F. Kennedy

Majority rule only works if you're also

considering individual rights,

because you can't have five wolves and one sheep

voting on what to have for dinner.

- Larry Flynt

A Proposal to Replace (Most) Content Moderation with Profile Matching

Content moderation has long been a thorny issues for social media. Nobody likes how it works (or doesn't work) today, and the stricter and less well-defined rules and "norms" on newer platforms like Fediverse/Mastodon and Counter Social just make this more contentious. I have a radical proposal...

Let's replace (most) content moderation with "Profile Matching." Yes, Profile Matching sounds like the way dating sites work, and that's intentional. Here's how it would work...

Everyone's account profile contains two rather long checklists - one is a list of subjects they want excluded from their timeline, and the other is a list of subjects they Post messages about. By default a new account would be marked as both posting and accepting most subjects, with a very few subjects like NSFW images defaulting to not posted and not accepted. Of course the account owner is encouraged to customize both lists.

As an example, an account that excluded #Politics posts, would not see any posts on their timeline from accounts that stated they posted about politics.

There would also be the ability when Posting to override the account setting, such as an account that seldom posted about politics making a single political post, or a politics account posting a cute cat photo and wanting to reach a wider audience.

Content moderation would consist of two functions:
1) Warn and quickly suspend accounts that post ILLEGAL content. (Illegal in the strict sense of breaking laws, such as child porn, libel/defamation, or copyright infringement)
2) MARK accounts that post types of content they said they wouldn't post. For example, FORCE an account to be marked #Politics is it makes political posts without having that checked on the profile.

Here are a few EXAMPLES of the many subjects to be on the "I Post" and the Exclude ("I don't want to view") checklists... There could also be sub-subjects, so someone could view Politics in general, but exclude Anti-Democratic Politics. These examples are from an American's perspective, but of course the post/exclude lists need to be globally applicable. The lists will need to be added-to over time. Whenever a new subject is added, the defaults would be "I Post" this, and I Don't Exclude this subject.

#Food
 Images of food
 Animal-based food

#BodyImage
 Dieting
 Weight reduction

#CurrentEvents
 Government
 Natural Disasters
 War
 Famine/Starvation
 Climate

#Politics
 Pro-Democratic Politics
 Pro-Republican Politics
 Anti-Democratic Politics
 Anti-Republican Politics
 Requests for political donations
 ...

#Religion
 Christianity
 Atheism
 ...

#Pro-LGBTQ+
#Anti-LGBTQ+

#Pro-Choice
#Anti-Choice ("pro-life")

#Mainstream-Science

#Anti-Mainstream-Science
 Anti-Vaccination

# Advertising, Solicitation (other than political)

The decades-long Israeli occupation of Palestine *IS* a Crime-Against-Humanity.

The decades-long Israeli occupation of Palestine *IS* a Crime-Against-Humanity. The Israeli leaders who continue to commit this atrocity and the American leaders who continue to support the occupation *ARE* morally bankrupt. We MUST purge our government of elected leaders who turn a blind eye to Israel's Crimes-Against-Humanity and elect a new generation of leaders committed to FORCING Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and recognize the Free Nation of Palestine!

Reparations are NOT the Answer

Black Americans have been treated terribly for centuries, but Reparations are NOT the answer.

1) We need to make life better for ALL disadvantaged Americans on a CONTINUING basis. A few of the many crucial steps are better schools for all kids, pre-school education for all kids, healthcare for everyone.

2) MANY groups have suffered grievously at the hands of our government or through the inaction of our government. Native Americans as a group have suffered even worse fates than Black Americans. Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, LQBTQ Americans, Female Americans, Muslim Americans, and more have suffered grievous harm. If Black Americans deserve reparations, all these other groups do also.  

3) Where would you draw the line for which Blacks get reparations? Those who can prove slave ancestors? Those who claim slave ancestry? Everyone with African DNA? Everyone who "looks Black?" 

Let's raise up EVERYONE who has been discriminated against, and let's help each of them every year for all time.

Brave New World - After the Pandemic of 2020

Someday the Great Pandemic of 2020 will be over, whether in 6 months or 12 or 18. But we will NOT return to what we considered "normal." It is a certainty that things will be different, but what will the NEW "normal" look like.  This is my opinion of what our post-pandemic "brave new world" will look like - some of my predictions are quite obvious, while others are purely speculative...

Cruise lines and airlines will never fully recover. There will be more government restrictions on international travel, and for decades individuals will not feel safe in international travel, plus the new level of xenophobia and racism will also put a drag on international travel.

Business travel, especially international, will never fully recover. In addition to airlines, this will also impact hotels, rental cars, convention facilities, high-end restaurants and more.

The use of video conferencing will continue to expand rapidly long after the pandemic is over. This will become part of the new "normal." (As an aside, Zoom Video Communications Inc ZM:NASDAQ stock has seen a huge rise during the pandemic, and has, I believe, become overvalued.)

The reduced air travel will impact companies like Boeing even more than it impacts airlines. I predict that it will be years before there is ANY demand for new airplanes. And of course this will impair all Boeing's subcontractors and vendors.

"Destination" entertainment centers will never fully recover. Las Vegas and DisneyLand/World will never regain their previous level of attendance, especially from international visitors.

In-person professional sports events will be quite slow to recover.

Movie theaters are unlikely to ever fully recover.

This pandemic will be the death blow to many shopping malls and their tenants. Macy's, JC Penney and such stores may never reopen. 

Fashion will never fully rebound. A lot of people are going to find that one of the things they like about staying at home is dressing very casually. They may also get used to more casual hairstyles, fingernails, etc.  This is of course further pressure on the likes of Macy's as well as many others.

Our relationship with doctors is going to be very different. We are going to find that we like telemedicine and getting prescriptions by mail. (As an aside, Teladoc Health Inc TDOC:NYSE stock has seen a huge rise during the pandemic, and has, I believe, become overvalued.)

The restaurant business will be unrecognizable. So many mom & pop restaurants will never reopen. I don't have a good guess for what the restaurant landscape will look like, but it will be littered with tombstones.

My guess is that grocery delivery will only see a modest increase after the pandemic ends. I don't see Instacart etc. keeping all the extra business they are getting now.

This pandemic will give a big boost to a cashless society. This is good news for the likes of Paypal and Stripe as well as the big players.

Americans are going to like the idea of getting a monthly check from the government, and aren't going to want it to end. There will be increased calls for something like Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend" on a permanent basis. 

The idea of a national identity card is going to get a boost. Whereas Americans used to worry about the government controlling them and taking away from them, the idea of being easily identifiable to the government is going to come to be associated with more easily receiving government money.  I can even see a national identity card doubling as a debit card for instantly accessing government benefit payments. [My recommendation is that the government NEVER REQUIRE a national identity card, but rather just say that if you want to receive government benefits, you need a national identity card.]

This pandemic will add greatly to the calls for free healthcare for all Americans. There will still be heated discussions about the details (personally, I'm a fan of government/private partnership rather than a government takeover), but there will be big changes soon.

US consumer confidence will not recover for decades. Overall, Americans will spend less and put more into their "rainy day" jar (as well as repaying debts incurred during the pandemic).  Among many other things, this means Americans owning their cars longer, buying smaller houses - in general less "discretionary" spending. [and of course I acknowledge the number of Americans who have never been able to make "discretionary" purchases like a new car.]

------------

In addition to the above changes that I predict will happen, there are also some changes that we need to make (and may or may not)...

We need a MUCH better National Strategic Reserve. In addition to the obvious huge and continuously updated stock of masks and other personal protective equipment, we also need a large and continuously updated stock of drugs, especially including those that are typically manufactured overseas, like most antibiotics. In addition to future pandemics, our National Strategic Reserve must prepare us for all sorts of natural disasters and geopolitical disruptions.

The Economic Crisis The Pandemic Will Cause Is NOT a "Recession," It Is Altogether Different

We need new terms to discuss the economic consequences of the current pandemic.  Terms like Recession (or even Depression), Economic Growth, Jobs Growth, Monetary Policy, and Fiscal Policy simply lose their usual meaning.

The usual goals for addressing a Recession are to create more jobs and more spending. However the economic problem caused by the pandemic is not too few jobs, but essentially too few workers, in the sense that the jobs are still there, but many workers are not able to perform those jobs - in some cases because that are actually sick, but in many more cases because a societal lockdown prevents them from leaving their homes to travel to a job. So the idea of creating more jobs to address the economic crisis of the pandemic is simply meaningless.

As to spending, it will generally decline greatly during the pandemic. Other than food and rent, most purchases will be put on hold for the duration. Why would anyone even think of buying a new home or car or fancy clothes when they are in lockdown at home? All restaurants and all retail stores other than food and medicine will likely be closed. Nothing, and certainly not lower interest rates, will (or should) cause people to spend beyond the basics of survival.

What the pandemic WILL REQUIRE is that the government provide sufficient immediate cash to everyone to make up for the lack of a regular paycheck. 

We need to simply forget about the usual metrics like "Recession," and just focus on surviving both medically and economically during the pandemic.

The Federal Government Holds All The Cards For Addressing the Climate Crisis, Don't Scapegoat Private Enterprise

If you want to advocate for a Cuba-like system in which there is no stock market and all means of production and distribution are part of a massive government, go for it. (and note that China's miracle of lifting 98% of its people out of extreme poverty in 30 years came from moving toward private ownership - along with a stock market).

But as long as America continues to have it's great free market system, everyone need to understand how it works. Investors are driven by self interest - and it is essential to the operation of the system that they be driven by self interest. When Americans need more toilet paper, toilet paper manufacturers expand their factories out of self interest, and investors provide the money for that expansion out of self interest, and tree farms expand out of self interest, and investors provide the money for that expansion out of self interest.

BECAUSE investors operate out of self interest, they respond very quickly to the slightest government pressures, whether that pressure is beneficial or injurious. As long as our government continues to subsidize oil well drilling and provide public land for it, investors will like oil stocks. On the other side, the enthusiasm for Tesla shares is greatly boosted by the subsidies for electric cars.

Investors and companies will rapidly respond to whatever sticks and carrots our government chooses for the Climate Crisis. So far, our leaders have been worse than unhelpful, for example, BOTH Trump and Bernie Sanders are proposing to block the import of solar panels into the United States. Please assign the blame where it is deserved, on our government, and not on our efficient free enterprise system.

What's So Bad About Global Warming?

The last time the average temperatures on our planet were 4 degrees warmer than they are now, palm trees grew in the Arctic.[1]  Would that be a bad thing? Let's look deeper...

Suppose that Earth were uninhabited, and a band of humans were just a arriving from somewhere else, AND that this uninhabited Earth was 4 degrees warmer than today's Earth and the average temperature was stable from year to year.

This bunch of newcomers would find Siberia and Greenland and Alaska and Northern Canada to be quite pleasant places, and would probably settle there happily. They would also find all of the Middle East and half of Africa, and half of eastern and southern Asia to be completely uninhabitable - crops could not grow there and humans could not survive long there outside of an air conditioned environment. That wouldn't be a problem for these newcomers in the same way that Antarctica's uninhabitability is not a problem today.

Our newcomers would also find dry land and oceans with shorelines as the demarcation between the two, so they would locate their settlements appropriately. They wouldn't care, or even be aware, that the shorelines were miles inland of 2020 shorelines.

They would also take advantage of the lakes and rivers, and the rainfall patterns they found. And they would take appropriate precautions against the prevailing pattern of hurricanes and other storms. Again, they wouldn't care, or even notice, that both the blessings and the hazards they found were vastly different from those in our 2020.

Could this newly found Earth support as large a population of humans as our current Earth does? Probably not, but that is NOT our BIG problem.

The Problem Is Rate Of Change

If Earth's average temperature were to climb by 4 degrees over the course of millenia, we humans could probably adapt fairly well. Coastal cities would very gradually decline and populations would move inland and further from the equator. Farms in warmer areas would very gradually decline while farms in Canada and Russia boomed. The entire population of the Middle East (and much of Africa and eastern/southern Asia) would very gradually migrate to more fertile and inhabitable parts of our planet. These migrations, undertaken over the course of millennia, would not be that different in kind from the population movements over the last several millennia.

But what if a 4 degree rise in average temperature takes place over the course of only a few decades? We will probably rescue the relatively few people living on low-lying island nations, but will we have the morality, or even the means, to rescue even the hundreds of millions of people of the Middle East, let alone the billions living in other hotter and drier parts of our world? Or will we condemn those people to near certain death by barricading them in lands with no means to grow food and incompatible with human life without mechanical air conditioning? Before they starve, those people would resort to ever more intense wars over what little fertile land and food remains.

And in our own country, what about the costs and logistics of relocating a third of our population away from the coasts? And what about our own farms becoming increasingly less productive? And the changes in rainfall and storm patterns? Consider the human costs and the economic costs.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fighting-climate-action-uninhabitable-earth-author-david-wallace-wells-podcast-ncna979551

The Problem Isn't Socialism, It's Stupid Socialism - Potatoes, Electricity, and Rent Control

Let's look at pricing, and let's use farm produce as a first example, say potatoes.

What should the price of potatoes be in a hypothetical country that grows potatoes, but neither exports nor imports them?

In a capitalist country, the answer is easy. The price is the point at which supply and demand are matched. And that price can vary daily (hopefully by a very small amount) as people's taste for potatoes rises or falls, and as farm production rises or falls (good or bad crop years, farmers starting to grow potatoes or switching to another crop or exiting farming, etc.).

But in a country where the government sets the price of potatoes, the situation is much more complex. If the government wants to increase its support among consumers (think Venezuela), it is tempted to set prices low. Artificially low prices would allow a few people to buy potatoes at a bargain price, but the supply would run out before everyone got the potatoes they wanted. And the situation would rapidly get far worse as farmers suffered from the price of potatoes being set below their cost of growing them, and eventually stopped growing potatoes at all.

In a country where the government is more concerned about its support among farmers than among consumers (think rice farmers in Japan), consumers try to switch to other products if they can, and production exceeds consumption leaving the government to either absorb a surplus or artificially limit production.

A third possibility is that the government sells potatoes to consumers at a low price, but buys potatoes from farmers at a high price. This makes both consumers and farmers happy until the government runs out of money and inflation skyrockets when the government prints near-worthless additional money.

The above is not a blanket condemnation of government price-setting, merely a warning that a government that wishes to set prices must ignore all parochial demands and set prices based on sound economic principles and accurate analysis.

While it is very hard to justify setting potato prices, each government really does need to set electricity pricing, because there is only one electric line to a home, thus making the delivery of electricity (not necessarily the generation of electricity) a monopoly, whether a private monopoly or a government monopoly.  In spite of pressures both from consumers wanting low prices and from an electric company wanting fat profits, a rational government must set prices based on sound economic principles and accurate analysis. If the government itself actually IS the electric supplier, the problem is even harder, as there is no counterforce to balance the demands of consumers for low price electricity, and the government is in great danger of choosing to sell electricity below cost, resulting in deficient equipment maintenance (again think Venezuela), higher taxes or default, etc.

As a third example, look at rent control. Rental properties are in many ways like potatoes. They each require land, potentially very expensive land. They each require a lot of up-front capital. And they are each in danger of being in undersupply or oversupply if supply and demand are out of balance.

Exactly as with potatoes, if a government wants to inflate its support among consumers and sets rents artificially low, a few people can rent apartments at a bargain price, but then the supply runs out before everyone gets a place to live. And the situation rapidly gets far worse as landlords suffer from the price of rent being set below their cost of providing homes, stop building any more rental units, and (unless prevented from doing so by an even more disruptive law) convert existing rental units to other uses.

A Few Ways in which the Warren/Sanders Assaults on Billionaires would Backfire

Billionaires have lawyers and tax accountants FAR smarter than I am, but here are a couple of ways they would defeat the assault on their wealth by Warren/Sanders...

Transaction Tax:  The answer to a transaction tax is to stop having any transactions. Form or join an offshore entity whose function is to buy/sell/hold US securities, as a mutual fund does. The ultra-wealthy American simply buys and holds an interest in the offshore entity, so no transaction tax. The offshore entity is free to buy and sell stocks and bonds with no transaction tax as long as the transactions don't go through a US exchange.  --  The real burden of a transaction tax would fall on ordinary workers whose 401K retirement plans currently make a fair number of transactions.

Wealth Tax: The ultra-wealthy American moves themself and their wealth to another country and renounces US citizenship. Yes, it would be a significant inconvenience for them, but their contribution to the US Treasury would be completely gone. Yes, Warren/Sanders propose to tax Americans renouncing their citizenship (which may or may not be legal), but there is always a window between when a law is enacted and when it takes effect, so those wanting to leave would just do so quickly.

I wish Warren/Sanders would approach the issue of taxes on the ultra-wealthy as a logical issue, rather than trying to create a campaign issue by inciting hatred of billionaires in the way Trump incites hatred of migrants. We can greatly increase the tax revenue our US Treasury receives from the ultra-wealthy, if the issue is addressed as an optimization problem rather than through hate mongering.

Further reading:  Billionaire Bill Gates doesn't oppose the idea of a wealth tax, but points out the fatal flaws in the absence of global cooperation.  https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/bill-gates-us-wealth-tax

The Real Numbers Don't Support Sanders' Assault On Insurance Companies

Sanders and Warren and some of the other candidates are trying to pull the wool over our eyes on health care costs by trying to make insurance companies the boogie man. The administration costs plus profit of health insurance is only 6.4% of total health care costs. Even if those costs could be eliminated (which of course they can't, there is always an administrative cost whether private or government), it would barely move the needle of overall health care costs.

While the 8-figure salaries for the CEOs of the largest insurers might be considered some kind of moral issue, financially it has zero impact on national health costs.

To make any meaningful reduction in overall costs, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals and other components would need to be addressed. Those reductions would be hard, and more important for this discussion, any reductions in those areas could be made equally well whether health care is administered publicly or privately.

Sanders etc. could have proposed a system like the Veterans Administration health care system where the government owns the hospitals, and the doctors are government employees, but that is not their proposal. Their proposal (fortunately) does not nationalize doctors or hospitals, so there are no inherent savings in these areas (and the Veterans Administration health care system certainly has its own scandals, and cost overrun issues).

Sanders and Warren also have proposals to force the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices (which also has some very complex issues), but again this is completely divorced from their assault on insurance companies.

Bottom line, Sanders et al are inciting hatred toward insurance companies as a political tool in the same way that Trump incites hatred toward immigrants as a political tool.

and no, I am not an employee of an insurance company or have any financial interest.